We've got ourselves an X-Men fan.

(SPOILERS) I was tepid on Logan’s prospects, both commercially and artistically, but the
acclaim that has greeted it appears to have proved me wrong on both counts. And
yet, and this really isn’t sour
grapes, as I’d have loved to agree with the raves… I don’t think it’s a great
movie. I don’t even think it’s the best X-Men
movie. It has the kernel of a great movie, sporadically
it’s a great movie, and Hugh Jackman gives a great performance – and another
that’s not so great – but its estimable aspects are rather levelled by the
sheer, unwavering competence of director James Mangold. It certainly doesn’t “transcend
the genre”.

Don’t get me wrong. Logan’s
a good movie. But my appreciation of it is tempered by buts, of how it falls short
of its best intentions… It’s entirely valid to aspire to classics when setting
out your movie stall, but it particularly felt as if the makers were on tenuous
ground here, almost to the point of mashup, with the references ad nauseam to
the kind of movie it was like, from Unforgiven
and Shane (and good God, do they
overegg that pudding, to the point of inanity – it’s hardly a classic
adaptation anyway) to Paper Moon. The
former, in particular, does Logan no
favours at all, as it instantly draws attention to the gulf in quality between
their screenplays. There are a series of strong beats in the script from Mangold,
Michael Green (the upcoming Alien:
Covenant and Blade Runner 2049)
and Scott Frank, but they’re no collective David Webb Peoples, and the end result
bears similar structural issues to Frank’s earlier The Wolverine, the most pervasive being the failure to come up with
a remotely worthy antagonist. That, and a less-than-spectacular finale (and in
a final curtain such as this, it’s all about the finale).

So, on the positive side, the reconfiguration of the X-Men saga to a derelict,
pre-apocalyptic 2029 in which mutants have all but died out thanks to Richard E
Grant’s Dr Rice, and in which the increasingly sickly, toxified Logan (there’s
a push-pull relationship with the advances of science here; on the one hand, medication
keeps Charles from imperilling others, on the other, the name of advancement has
washed up the Wolverine) cares for the increasingly frail, mentally absent
Charles Xavier, is striking and arresting.

This is easily the most interesting Xavier has been on the
big screen, a character haunted by his mistakes (a definite bonus to leave the
Westchester Incident unvisualised) and the infirmity of the very faculty that
set him above the rest; trying to bring a whiter-than-white character back down
to a relatable level is no small task, but it’s achieved here in a compelling
way, and Stewart, who can be wearisomely stoical in his roles, gives it his all.
Although, and here’s the but: sure, go for a higher certificate, but don’t lob
F-bombs around indiscriminately just because you can.

Logan’s the kind of character who would believably swear
like a trooper, Charles just isn’t, and giving him a whole scene of f-ing and
blinding feels like pandering, either to the actor or to an adolescent urge (Deadpool, of course, was an entire movie
personifying an adolescent urge) to overindulge what hasn’t been seen in the
series before; all that’s missing is Professor X ordering hookers and smoking a
crack pipe. The real deal would have been showing the maturity to hold back
when necessary, to go overboard only when it had most impact. Instead, there
are occasions when the swearing and violence derive from the same kind of juvenile
idea of “adult” material as Deadpool;
now we can show titties! That’s why we have a scene where Charles does nothing
but speak with a potty mouth, whether or not its germane to his character
(sure, you can argue he’s a man at the end of his tether, but what you want is
contrast with Logan, preserving an aspect of the character’s dignity, rather
than everyone sounding like their vernacular has been punched up by David Mamet).

The violence too. Some of it is as giddily enervating as John Wick Chapter Two’s. The opening
carjacking sequence is a masterpiece of building up to what we want to see:
Logan unleashed. But this new-found taste for gore, like anything, quickly
loses its lustre if every altercation
is like that. The final sprint in the woods is well-enough handled, but the
extreme splatter on display is already over-familiar by that point.

In between, there’s at least one other fine sequence, in
which Logan valiantly struggles through a hotel to inject Charles with a suppressant,
taking out immobile heavies on the way. And the whirling dervish of Laura/X-23
(Dafne Keen, who bears a passing resemblance to Lukas Hass circa Witness), going crazy on anyone and
everyone also leads to some well-choreographed action. But here’s the thing.
There’s a nagging feeling in each case that they could have been even better
(perhaps that’s partly a consequence of some absurd and ridiculous buzz that
compared the quality of filmmaking here to Fury
Road), and between the rumbles, Mangold often appears to confuse languid
pacing with character development; there just isn’t enough depth to the
characterisation and storytelling to justify the longueurs, as strong as the
main trio of performances are.

I expected the worst from teaming Logan up with a pint-sized
sidekick, particularly an adamantine-clawed one, but thanks to Keen’s
performance this is element is an unreserved success, avoiding the urge to
sentimentalise as Laura’s presence rekindles Charles’ innate compassion and
Logan’s grudging sense of duty and responsibility. There was a point where I
feared, having spent so much of the movie mute, that Keen would reveal herself as
not such a thespian after all when she began speaking, but the only bum notes
struck are Laura wailing “Daddy!” as
he dies (she doesn’t seem like the kind of kid to use that word, even if she
feels that emotion – it might be Mangold tipping his hat to Aliens) and the remarkable memory Laura
shows when spouting Shane by way of
eulogy over Logan’s grave. The movie didn’t need the extended clip anyway, and
this just cements that.

Other sequences and emotional beats don’t quite attain the
heights they’re reaching for. They’re fine on paper but Mangold’s too
workmanlike. The interlude at the farm is strong in theory, but it hasn’t yet
been earned at this point, and the various elements brought to bear fail to
make the murder of the family a satisfying (if that’s the word) horror to
avenge. Much of that is down to the nature of the beast. Being the X-24. Having
mostly avoid spoilers outside of trailers, I was unprepared for his introduction,
and initially thought the anti-Logan might be an elaborate dream sequence.
Certainly that, while not ideal, would have been preferable to the banality of
yet another alter-ego villain. One that doesn’t even offer Jackman an acting
challenge since all he is guttural rage (Superman
III’s evil Supes, on the other hand, was the highlight of that particular
affair). Yadda yadda the greatest enemy is yourself. Maybe, but only if
presented in an interesting manner.

This is also where Unforgiven
comparisons simply break down. The pieces are in place – the savage slaying of
Logan’s dearest friend as a spur to vengeance – but the conveyer of this act
carries no dramatic or emotional weight. Not even with the brain and brawn split
with Grant. Now, Reg is great, but he’s entirely wasted in Logan, given nothing in the way of wit or even a hint of depth.
About the only notable aspect of his presence is the manner in which Logan
shoots him in the head in the middle of a ream of exposition. Admittedly, Unforgiven was Mark Millar’s premise for
Old Man Logan, and Mangold probably
rightly departed significantly from it (quite apart from issues of various
other character rights), but what he didn’t find was a worthy foe for Logan’s
last stand.

Of the rest of the cast, Boyd Holbrook provides a cocksure
mocking tone as cybernetically enhanced head Reaver Pierce, and he’s a good
enough actor to make his leading duties in The
Predator something to rest easy about, but Pierce isn’t, when it comes to
it, a goon for the ages.

And Stephen Merchant’s Caliban… Well, he’s okay. He isn’t
much of an actor, Merchant. Take out the comedy and that’s blatantly obvious,
but he gets by (it’s probably also why his best line is about being little more than a glorified truffle pig). What chafes rather is that Tómas Lemarquis was profoundly
superior in his one scene in the uneven (and much-derided) X-Men: Apocalypse. In narrative terms, the kiddie mutants are a
motley crew who really ought to have been in training up that mountain for just
such an event as befalls them in the final reel. And distracting that the most
formidable amongst them’s super skill appears to be grass weaving.

Thematically? Besides a serviceable meditation on regret and
loss (when someone expiring actually says “So
this is what it feels like”, you aren’t dealing with better than
serviceable)? Did Fox have an insight into the election outcome? Was the fix
in? How else to explain the Trump’s America border wall with Mexico, and Canada
seen as an undisputed safe haven? There are also derivative elements such as drones
used to (indirectly) pick off innocents. The running with the child
experimentation thing is interesting, however. Obviously, it runs deep with the
Wolverine saga anyway, but off the back of Stranger
Things it feels like there’s a resurgent theme of the dark and deadly abuses
inflicted by an establishment knowing no bounds. Much has been made of the
intradiegetic aspect of the X-Men comic
books appearing in the story, but it didn’t really do much for me; are you
undercutting the mythology of a character or re-mythologising him? Make a
decision. Either way, you need a director with the chops to underline the
element through artistry.

I suppose you can never say never again with these kinds of
movies. They could easily resuscitate Jackman from the grave if the deal was
sweet enough, or set him in an earlier time, and there are bound to be offers
due to the picture’s unqualified financial success, but he’d be wise to stick
to his guns. He’s a fine actor who has made much of not that interesting (as in, to justify a series of solo vehicles)
character. I’m sure that’s heresy to some, but Wolverine/Logan seems to me to
be a character better in silhouette than attempting to flesh out, and that
we’ve got this far is all down to Hugh. It’s just a shame that the kind of
farewell catharsis that should have been is rather undermined by a screenplay
that fumbles the final hurdle; nothing amps up or unfolds quite as effectively
as it should, is quite as tragic as it might be. Which is frustrating, as it
comes close. So, Logan is the best of
the solo Wolverine vehicles, but it lingers some way behind First Class and Days of Future Past in the pantheon. What it does leave me wondering is how long this newly-ignited capacity for
swearing, sex and splatter in comic book movies will last before makers realise
the tail is wagging the dog.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Vampire Academy (2014) My willingness to give writer Daniel Waters some slack on
the grounds of early glories sometimes pays off (Sex and Death 101) and sometimes, as with this messy and indistinct
Young Adult adaptation, it doesn’t. If Vampire
Academy plods along as a less than innovative smart-mouthed Buffy rip-off that might be because, if
you added vampires to Heathers, you
would probably get something not so far from the world of Joss Whedon. Unfortunately
inspiration is a low ebb throughout, not helped any by tepid direction from
Daniel’s sometimes-reliable brother Mark and a couple of hopelessly plankish
leads who do their best to dampen down any wit that occasionally attempts to
surface.

I can only presume there’s a never-ending pile of Young
Adult fiction poised for big screen failure, all of it comprising multi-novel
storylines just begging for a moment in the Sun. Every time an adaptation
crashes and burns (and the odds are that they will) another one rises, hydra-like,
hoping…

The Avengers 4.3: The Master Minds The Master Minds hitches
its wagon to the not uncommon Avengers
trope of dark deeds done under the veil of night. We previously encountered it
in The Town of No Return, but Robert
Banks Stewart (best known for Bergerac,
but best known genre-wise for his two Tom Baker Doctor Who stories; likewise, he also penned only two teleplays for
The Avengers) makes this episode more
distinctive, with its mind control and spycraft, while Peter Graham Scott, in
his third contribution to the show on the trot, pulls out all the stops,
particularly with a highly creative climactic fight sequence that avoids the usual
issue of overly-evident stunt doubles.

Paddington 2 (2017)
(SPOILERS) Paddington
2 is every bit as upbeat and well-meaning as its predecessor. It also has more
money thrown at it, a much better villain (an infinitely better villain) and, in terms of plotting, is more
developed, offering greater variety and a more satisfying structure. Additionally,
crucially, it succeeds in offering continued emotional heft and heart to the
Peruvian bear’s further adventures. It isn’t, however, quite as funny.

Even suggesting such a thing sounds curmudgeonly, given the
universal applause greeting the movie, but I say that having revisited the
original a couple of days prior and found myself enjoying it even more than on
first viewing. Writer-director Paul King and co-writer Simon Farnaby introduce
a highly impressive array of set-ups with huge potential to milk their absurdity
to comic ends, but don’t so much squander as frequently leave them undertapped.

Paddington’s succession of odd jobs don’t quite escalate as
uproariously as they migh…

Altered Carbon Season One
(SPOILERS) Well, it looks
good, even if the visuals are absurdly indebted to Blade Runner. Ultimately, though, Altered Carbon is a disappointment. The adaption of Richard
Morgan’s novel comes armed with a string of well-packaged concepts and futuristic
vernacular (sleeves, stacks, cross-sleeves, slagged stacks, Neo-Cs), but
there’s a void at its core. It singularly fails use the dependable detective
story framework to explore the philosophical ramifications of its universe –
except in lip service – a future where death is impermanent, and even botches the
essential goal of creating interesting lead characters (the peripheral ones,
however, are at least more fortunate).

Darkest Hour (2017)
(SPOILERS) Watching Joe Wright’s return to the rarefied
plane of prestige – and heritage to boot – filmmaking following the execrable
folly of the panned Pan, I was struck
by the difference an engaged director, one who cares about his characters,
makes to material. Only last week, Ridley Scott’s serviceable All the Money in the World made for a pointed
illustration of strong material in the hands of someone with no such
investment, unless they’re androids. Wright’s dedication to a relatable Winston
Churchill ensures that, for the first hour-plus, Darkest Hour is a first-rate affair, a piece of myth-making that barely
puts a foot wrong. It has that much in common with Wright’s earlier Word War II
tale, Atonement. But then, like Atonement, it comes unstuck.

Dreamscape (1984)
(SPOILERS) I wasn’t really au fait with movies’ box office performance until the end of the ‘80s, so I think I had an idea that Dennis Quaid (along with Jeff Bridges) was a much bigger star than he was, just on the basis of the procession of cool movies he showed up in (The Right Stuff, Enemy Mine, Innerspace, D.O.A.) The truth was, the public resisted all attempts to make him The Next Big Thing, not that his sly-grinned, cocky persona throughout the decade would lead you to believe his dogged lack of success had any adverse effect on his mood. Dreamscape was one of his early leading-man roles, and if it’s been largely forgotten, it also inherits a welcome cult status, not only through being pulpy and inventive on a fairly meagre budget, but by being pretty good to boot. It holds up.

The X-Files 11.1: My Struggle III
(SPOILERS) Good grief. Have things become so terminal for Chris Carter
that he has to retcon his own crap from the previous season, rather than the
(what he perceived as) crap written by others? Carter, of course, infamously
pretended the apocalyptic ending of Millennium
Season Two never happened, upset by the path Glen Morgan and James Wong, left
to their own devices, took with his baby. Their episode was one of the greats
of that often-ho-hum series, so the comedown was all the unkinder as a result. In
My Struggle III, at least, Carter’s
rewriting something that wasn’t very good in the first place. Only, he replaces
it with something that is even worse in the second.

The X-Files 11.2: This
(SPOILERS) Glen Morgan returns with a really good idea, certainly one
with much more potential than his homelessness tract Home Again in Season 10, but seems to give up on its eerier
implications, and worse has to bash it round the head to fit the season’s
“arc”. Nevertheless, he’s on very comfortable ground with the Mulder-Scully
dynamic in This, who get to spend
almost the entire episode in each other’s company and might be on the best form
here since the show came back, give or take a Darin.

The Shape of Water (2017)
(SPOILERS) The faithful would have you believe it never went
away, but it’s been a good decade since Guillermo del Toro’s mojo was in full
effect, and his output since (or lack thereof: see the torturous wilderness
years of At the Mountains of Madness
and The Hobbit), reflected through
the prism of his peak work Pan’s
Labyrinth, bears the hallmarks of a serious qualitative tumble. He put his
name to stinker TV show The Strain,
returned to movies with the soulless Pacific
Rim and fashioned flashy but empty gothic romance Crimson Peak (together his weakest pictures, and I’m not forgetting
Mimic). The Shape of Water only seems to underline what everyone has been
saying for years, albeit previously confined to his Spanish language pictures: that
the smaller and more personal they are, the better. If his latest is at times a
little too wilfully idiosyncratic,
it’s also a movie where you can nevertheless witness it’s creator’s creativity
flowing untrammelled once mo…

Split (2016) (SPOILERS) M Night Shyamalan went from the toast of twist-based
filmmaking to a one-trick pony to the object of abject ridicule in the space of
only a couple of pictures: quite a feat. Along the way, I’ve managed to miss several
of his pictures, including his last, The
Visit, regarded as something of a re-locating of his footing in the low
budget horror arena. Split continues
that genre readjustment, another Blumhouse production, one that also manages to
bridge the gap with the fare that made him famous. But it’s a thematically
uneasy film, marrying shlock and serious subject matter in ways that don’t
always quite gel.

Shyamalan has seized on a horror staple – nubile teenage
girls in peril, prey to a psychotic antagonist – and, no doubt with the best
intentions, attempted to warp it. But, in so doing, he has dragged in themes
and threads from other, more meritable fare, with the consequence that, in the
end, the conflicting positions rather subvert his attempts at subversion…